The purpose of this invention is to discriminate between audio signals propagated through the air and noise signals which are propagated through the plastic shell of the hearing aid. Most of the noise transmitted through the plastic case of the hearing aid is created within the body itself; i.e. chewing, talking, walking, etc.
The present invention utilizes two microphones, both coupled to the hearing aid case, wherein one microphone is exposed to sounds propagating through the air and the second microphone is purposely sealed from sounds propagating through the air.
In a typical hearing aid, one or more microphones convert sound transmitted through the air to an electrical signal. A signal processing system (amplifiers, filters, digital filtering, etc.) processes the signal, and a loudspeaker converts the processed electrical signal back to an audio signal. The hearing aid apparatus is enclosed in a plastic case that is placed In The Ear (ITE) canal or Behind The Ear (BTH).
The microphone(s) is(are) attached to the plastic case and the case is acoustically coupled to the bone and flesh of the wearer. Therefore, any sounds that originate in the skull are conducted to the microphone(s) and amplified and echoed back to the ear.
There have been many inventions for hearing aids wherein two or more microphones are used to cancel ambient noise. Both microphones “hear” the same audio signal that is propagating through the air. The noise cancellation technique assumes that the noise source is much further distant from the two microphones as compared to the local or desired audio signal. As long as the noise is generated at a distance which is large compared to the distance between the two microphones, the signals received at each microphone will be almost equal in amplitude and phase. Then a “difference device”, for example, a differential amplifier, can subtract the two microphone signals and effectively cancel the ambient noise. In addition, two or more microphones have been used with a differential amplifier to develop a directional microphone for use on a hearing aid. However, in all cases, all of the microphones were exposed to the audio signals propagating through the air in order to produce the desired effect.
In U.S. Pat. No. 5,526,819, two microphones are used to attempt to cancel out high amplitude “body noises” (such as a cough) from the very low level desired (DPE) audio information. However, in this patent, both microphones are exposed to the same audio signals in the air. One of the microphones is designed to not respond to the DPE signals that are of a fixed and known frequency in this test. It is also “necessary” that the microphones be different. In addition, the patent does not give any information as to how the “second” microphone, which is less “sensitive” than the first microphone, cancels out high level noise signals but does not cancel out the low level DPE signal. There is some “hint” of how the second “less sensitive” microphone works, since the patent states, “The output of 30B is of less sensitivity so that the frequency components of the DPE signal are missing from the signal applied to the minus input of the differential amplifier.” In other words, the less sensitive microphone is designed to be “less sensitive” at the specific frequency that is being looked for in this patent; i.e. frequencies F1 and F2 are applied to the ear and the instrument looks for an “echo” at 2 F1–F2. Also, the ratio of F2 to F1 is fixed. This patent clearly states that the typical test procedure varies F1 from 1,000 Hertz to 8,000 Hertz in steps of 100 Hertz. Therefore, the electronics must vary the frequency response of the second microphone for each step in the input frequencies.
In claim 1, lines 21 to 29, the patent states: “Said eartip including a second microphone means with a second output lead connected thereto for generating a second electrical signal on said second output lead which is proportional to said other body noises but is not substantially proportional to distortion product emission tone generated in the ear of said human being at the frequency of 2 F1–F2.” This claim clearly states that the second microphone must be very frequency selective since it is specifically not substantially sensitive to a specific frequency. Again, since the patent requires that the frequencies F1 and F2 be varied over a wide range (typically 1 kHz to 8 kHz in 100 Hertz steps), this means that the frequency selectivity of the second microphone must also be varied accordingly.
In U.S. Pat. No. 6,068,589, two or more microphones are used, all exposed to free air, but placed in different positions on the body (skull) so that noise generated from a relatively large distance is coupled almost equally to both microphones and canceled out, wherein noise generated nearby is selectively coupled much greater to the closer of the two microphones and less selectively to further microphone. Therefore, the “nearby” audio signal is amplified much more than those audio signals generated at a much greater distance. This improves the signal to noise ratio since the local signal is considered the “desirable signal” as compared to the noise generated at a distance. In addition, by locating the microphones on opposite sides of the skull, it is possible to increase the “directivity” of the hearing aide. Again, all of these microphones must be exposed to all of the audio signals transmitted through the air and there is no mention of using multiple microphones to cancel noise directly coupled to the hearing aid case and generated within the body.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,622,440 also indicates the use of two microphones that are physically separated and exposed to the air in order to “hear” the audio signals transmitted through the air. As in the previous patents, this patent subtracts the audio signals generated in each microphone in order to cancel noise generated at a “distance” that is large compared to the physical space between the two microphones. If this “distance” is relatively large compared to the physical separation of the two microphones, than the signals received by the two microphones will be substantially equal in amplitude and phase and may be canceled using a differential amplifier.
Audio signals generated much closer to the two microphones will be coupled greater to one microphone than the other and will not be completely canceled. In this type of circuit, both microphones are exposed to air in order to cancel noise generated at a distance. This type of circuit can also be used to enhance the “directivity” of a microphone.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,757,933 is almost identical to U.S. Pat. No. 4,622,440 except that this patent includes the use of a switch to either add the signals of the two microphones together or to subtract the signals from the two microphones. By varying the phase and gain of one microphone versus the other, the microphones can be made somewhat “directional”. Both microphones must be exposed to the air.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,402,496 again discusses the use of two microphones, both exposed to hear the audio signals transmitted through the air. The output of one microphone passes through a “first filter”. To quote: “The first filter generates a reference signal by selectively passing an audio spectrum of the input signal which primarily contains the undesired component.” This statement alone says that one must first “know” what the “undesired component” (i.e. noise) is, which is not useful in situations in which it is not possible to “know” in advance what the noise is. In addition, in this patent, both microphones are not identical.
Also, according to this invention, only one microphone is actually required. The output from this microphone is passed through a “first” filter as well as directly to the remainder of the signal processing electronics. There appears to be no explicit mention of a “second” microphone in the claims.
EP 0 782 371 B1 refers to the design of a microphone for use in hearing aids, particularly for use in “in-the-ear” (ITE) hearing aids. This patent clearly defines a technique for “mechanically” mounting a microphone in a hearing aid so that the sudden motion of the body does not pass from the body to the hearing aid shell and then to the hearing aid microphone. If this sudden motion is coupled to the microphone, the audio signal is amplified by the hearing aid electronics and passed into the ear.
The patent describes in great detail the mechanical mounting of such a microphone. This patent does not discuss nor hint of the application of a second microphone and electronics to cancel mechanical vibrations received by both microphones.
WO 97/44987 describes a hearing aid system wherein one microphone is connected to an amplifier, battery and loudspeaker (microactuator) and placed in a hermetically sealed case. The patent document also suggests the use of an acoustic array of individual microphones arranged in a horizontal row across the electronics module. This array of microphones is connected to electronics that creates a “directional” microphone which may enhance the sounds of interest while concurrently reducing noise.
In this patent there is no attempt to reduce noise which is directly coupled to the electronic “module” from being amplified and fed back to the ear. There is no mention of using one microphone that is sealed from audio signals propagated through the air and another microphone that is purposely exposed to audio signals propagated through the air.
EP 0 364 037 B1 teaches the use of two microphones, both exposed to audio signals propagated through the air, wherein one microphone is specifically designed to be sensitive to audio signals that originate close to it and the second microphone to be sensitive to audio signals which originate at a relatively large distance from the microphone. The outputs of the two microphones are electronically subtracted from each other in order to suppress hearing aid oscillation caused by audio feedback from the loudspeaker to the microphone.
In this patent the two microphones “must” be of different design in order for one microphone to be only sensitive to sound “close to it”. The patent does not discuss the problem of audio signals coupled directly to the microphones via the hearing aid case. In addition, both the microphones in this patent must be exposed to the air.
WO 94/25959 describes a microphone and electronic module wherein the microphone is placed in the ear and sensitive only to sounds passing from the inside of the ear to the outside of the ear (the opposite direction from the normal hearing aid). These “outbound” audio signals are amplified and electrically transmitted to a remote receiver. Noise reduction and cancellation features are described in this invention. This patent document requires that the inner ear be sealed from the air external to the ear and that one microphone be placed into this sealed chamber in order to be subjected to audio signals originating from the inner ear. A second microphone is placed external to the ear to be sensitive to noise originating outside of the ear. The signals from these two microphones are electronically processed to subtract the noise external to the ear from the same type of noise generated from inside the ear.
This patent clearly describes the use of a “structural configuration of the earpiece and gasket around extension section 147 (that) substantially eliminates audio vibrations conducted by the bone and tissue of the earpiece wearer.” “Such sound gasketing avoids audio vibration pickup of sound transmitted by the canal wall. Furthermore, the gasket composition dampens any audio vibration pickup of sound through the gasket material touching the canal inner wall.”
EP 0 354 698 B1 specifically concerns hearing aids and their assembly and is especially concerned with the long-felt need to avoid the amplification of noise caused by vibrations of either the casing or the components of the hearing aid. This patent attempts to solve this problem by making the hearing aid case out of a new plastic type material described as “a viscoelastic layer adhering the transducer to the casing”. This solution is totally mechanical and the patent specifically states that “ . . . some hearing aids include electronic devices to filter out noise. Not only are electronic devices quite expensive, but they also can take up valuable space.” Thus, this patent attempts to solve the problem of vibrations coupled to the hearing aid case by mechanical means.
WO 96/29009 describes a configuration of two microphones and electronics wherein one microphone is positioned to sense body sounds of a patient when the transducer (microphone) is placed against the patient's skin and the second microphone is positioned to sense noise in the external environment close to the first microphone. In this document, the two microphones are purposely “acoustically and mechanically isolated from each other”. This is the classical case wherein two microphones are used to subtract one source of noise from another. However, in this case the external noise is normally very much larger than the “internal noise” generated by the body. Therefore, there must be very specific electronic signal processing to subtract the very large external noise from the very small internal noise and not end up with a very large (negative phase) external noise.
Since the level of the external noise is not known relative to the internal noise, this document requires the use of a “digital signal processor” coupled to the first and second microphones to process the audio signals to produce an output signal that is indicative of the very small body sounds as compared to the very large external noise. How the “digital signal processor” actually determines how to subtract the very large external noise from the very small internal noise is not described.
WO 98/43567 describes a hearing aid noise cancellation system wherein the hearing aid specifically does not completely “plug the ear”; that is, the hearing aid has a “vent” so that sound can propagate directly to the inner ear without passing through the electronics of the hearing aid. In this type of hearing aid, the ear hears the sum of sounds received directly through the “vent” and also via the electronic microphone and loudspeaker of the hearing aid. In this document there is only one microphone. This microphone and the loudspeaker are both acoustically coupled to the inner ear via a hollow tube. Any sound that reaches the inner ear via the vent is (1) directly heard by the inner ear and (2) picked up by the microphone, processed, and fed back to the loudspeaker to cancel unwanted “noise” signals. The process of active noise cancellation is well known (see U.S. Pat. No. 4,473,906). As discussed in the WO 96/29009 patent document above, the WO 98/43567 patent document must “predetermine” what the noise is in order to cancel out this noise. This is the basic problem of all hearing aids designed to improve the intelligibility of speech signals. This patent does show any specific method of signal processing to improve the intelligibility of speech signals.
WO 98/19498 relates to the design of an ear muffler to reduce ambient noise from entering the ear and protect the ear against damage. This patent does not use any microphones or electronics.
WO 93/23942 describes the development of an “ear-mounted microphone” and speaker that does not require entry of any physical structure within the ear canal. In this patent document, “Acoustical isolation means is coupled between the speaker element and the housing for selectively isolating undesirable frequencies that might interfere with sensitivity of audio pick up at the microphone . . . ” This patent document does not use two microphones to acoustically isolate the speaker from the housing using electrical means. It clearly uses mechanical means to isolate the speaker from the housing. Also, in this document, the speaker directs its sound “outside” of the ear and not into the ear. In the exact reverse from hearing aids, this invention places the microphone inside the ear and the speaker on the outside of the ear. The document also claims to have noise reduction from the case to the microphone because the sound coupled from the housing to the vibration rings and then to the microphone somehow have equal and opposite phase relationships when they arrive at the microphone. There is, however, no explanation of this conclusion. The document also states: “ . . . it is necessary to acoustically isolate the speaker element 13 from the casing. In the present invention, this is accomplished by tuning the insulation means 50 similar to operation of a band pass filter within radio circuitry. Specifically, the speaker element 13 is mounted to the end housing 36 through a nonvibrational ring 50 which extends around the speaker element and operates to isolate the housing as sound insulation means from the speaker element.” The “nonvibrational ring,” however, is not described or explained.
A hearing aid made by Oticon employs a hollow tube which extends from a loudspeaker on a hearing aid case into the ear canal to direct sound into a deeper portion of the ear. The tube is supported by a spoked disk to provide open spaces to eliminate the occlusion effect. Audio oscillations caused by acoustical feedback are minimized by reducing the audio gain of the hearing aid amplifier at selected frequencies or bands of frequencies; however, the reduction in audio gain to prevent oscillations also reduces the maximum available gain to compensate for high frequency hearing loss. This type of hearing aid is therefore unsuitable for many persons.